Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church -- An Apology

I have been contemplating writing something on this for some time and have hesitated because the issue deserves more than just passing comment. I have not done the research on the statistics of the prevalence of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church, although I am sure others may have numbers, names, locations, and the like. Yet, perhaps if there was more open and frank discussion on issues such as these then progress towards a workable resolution might be quicker in coming.

The Pope, Benedict XVI, was alleged to have said on his way to Australia for the World Youth Day festivities that he was going to apologize to all those who have suffered sexual abuse at the hands of clergymen over the years. This blanket apology might not mean much but it would have meant that the Church acknowledges and has remorse for what has happened but is genuinely sorry for the tragedy that it has allowed to occur. This profound sorrow might not pay the bills of the victims or bring back loved ones who have committed suicide as a result of not being able to cope any longer with the pain, but it would say that even though we can never fully make amends for what has happened "we" accept responsibility.

Unfortunately, the Pope's point man on media communications has spent much of the day backtracking on whether an apology will be forthcoming and has even indicated that this might be one of those lost in translation moments, where what the Pope is alleged to have said might not actually be what he said.

Father Federico Lombardi, Director of the Vatican Press Office, has been saying that there is no papal commitment to making an apology and perhaps what Australian victims should be expecting is the Pope making brief mention of the "issue" in a statement. Stupid! This would seem to be the perfect moment to capitalize on the good will of Australians during WYD to make the apology.

It would seem that the Pope has not been pontificating on the issue and is on the record as saying that the Church needs to examine how it is going to, "prevent, heal and reconcile" the past crimes of the clergy. The Pope then went further in terms of putting this into context with, "this is the essential content of what we will say as we apologise."

Father Lombardi seems to think that any apology would be limited to a meeting with church officials and novices. This is the same means that was adopted by the Pope when apologizing during his visit to the US. This is a cop out! He does not need to apologize to the members of the clergy and the novices of the Church. He needs to apologize to the victims of the crimes perpetrated by the clergy on children for decades past.

Why is an apology necessary? The answer to this question is simple and is best done through an Australian example of the tragedy the sexual abuse of children has wreaked on one particular family. Their story is a sad and tragic one that has been played out in many thousands of families across the globe.

The Foster family was by all accounts a happy one. However, this changed tragically for the worst when Emma and Katherine Foster were raped by Father Kevin O'Donnell when they were in primary school. The Catholic Church does not seem to have a very good record in weeding out those applicants that have a penchant for young children.

Emma committed suicide at the age of 26. Katherine developed an alcohol abuse problem and this led to her being struck by a car driven by a drunk driver. Katherine now requires 24-hour care as a result of the physical and brain injuries that she sustained.

In reference to this sad tale the Bishop Anthony Fisher in his infinite wisdom expressed the following sentiment, "Happily, I think most of Australia was enjoying delighting in the beauty and goodness of these young people and the hope - the hope for us doing these sorts of things better in the future - as we saw last night, rather than, than dwelling crankily, as a few people are doing, on old wounds."

Bishop Fisher, you are a fool! These are not old wounds to those directly affected by them! These wounds are open and festering sores that are slowly but surely eating away at the very life essence of the victims of these abhorrent crimes. It is time the Catholic Church ante-ed up and faced the fact that it is responsible as the employer of predators like Father O'Donnell.

Priests like father O'Donnell when they are found guilty of the crimes they have committed they should be sent to prison. They should not be put into the protective wing of the prison. These brave souls that pray on children must be put into the general prison population where it should be known that they like to have their way with children. You should not be surprised that prisoners have families and they have children and that the mere thought of someone sexually violating their children is enough to ensure that the Father O'Donnells of this world get a firsthand understanding of what it is like to be violated. This would give a new meaning to "get what's coming to you"!

The Catholic Church has to start making amends in Australia. This can start with a full, open, and frank apology to victims. Then, I personally do not care if this means the Catholic Church has to sell off all its assets or mortgage its properties to the hilt, but it must pay compensation to victims for the harm these victims have suffered at the hands of the employees of the Church.

Thus endeth my rant (or is it a sermon?) on this subject.

Annoyance Provisions -- Tossed

Just a very brief update.

The Federal Court has tossed the annoyance provisions as they were written in Clause 7.1 of the legislation. The legal reasoning was that the provision was an infringement on free speech as there was no intelligible boundary as to what an annoyance is. The secondary reasoning was that current provisions in other laws and regulations are more than sufficient to deal with offensive behaviour.

Let's go annoy some pilgrims! The photo is of the two individuals that brought the action to the Federal Court, Amber Pike and Rachel Evans.

Kentucky Fried Chicken & PETA

Kentucky Fried Chicken or as it is better known KFC came into the sites of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals or as they are better known PETA. It seems that PETA has a problem with the way KFC treats their chickens. in factories and slaughterhouses. The thing about PETA protests is that the generally bring out the crowds for a bit of a perv as they normally involve some degree of nudity. PETA's protests against fur are legendary for the bare-breasted women. Now it seems that chickens are getting the bare-breasted treatment as well.

The three women were bare-breasted and wearing skimpy yellow bikini bottoms (look at the photo yourself -- I have attached it for your viewing pleasure). The protest took place in the Sydney CBD during the lunch hour. Maximum exposure for maximum effect, I guess. The three were in a cage and holding signs that read, "Chicks Agree: Boycott KFC".

The protesters -- Ashley Fruno, Fawn Porter (Fawn is a great name for a PETA activist), and Carla Lobos were eventually arrested and then claimed they were roughed up by police. The police, obviously, have denied this and also denied they used the additional powers that they have been granted for the month of July to cover the WYD activities. I would imagine that naked or semi-naked women would not be so much of an annoyance but rather a test of a pilgrim's faith!

The young women think that their protest has been successful and that they have educated the masses about the cruel practices of KFC. Judging by the attached photo they did more educating on the semi-naked form of women by the number of mobile phone cameras taking pictures.

Pamela Anderson is a PETA fan and gave Jessica Simpson a serve recently over a t-shirt that read, "Real Men Eat Meat". Pam has also recently been starring in Australia's version of Big Brother and while here also protesting in front of KFC. Unfortunately, Pam's protest was top on as opposed to topless, which was undoubtedly disappointing for many.

The end result is that KFC still feels that its treatment of its chickens is ethical. I think this is because they have not been deemed to have broken any laws. I would have thought that PETA would have been advocating a vegan lifestyle and not just better treatment of animals that are to be slaughtered.

Oh well!

World Youth Day -- Annoying T-Shirts

The annoying t-shirts that are likely to get their next airing once WYD gets underway were part of a fashion demonstration in front of the NSW Parliament building earlier today. Some of the slogans that front the t-shirts include "Pope Go Homo" and "The Pope Is Wrong - Put a Condom On".

There are certain to be protests in spite of the new powers that police have been given. Every single WYD has been subject to protest and the slogans above highlight who is likely to be coming out to protest.

Let the fun and games begin!

World Youth Day and the AIRC

The Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) has declined to terminate the bargaining period between RailCorp and the Rail, Tram, and Bus Union (RTBU). This means that the planned industrial action is still on. However, this dispute is not over as the President of the AIRC has ordered the parties to return on Thursday for a full hearing.

Despite the government's insistence that it has a 4% offer on the table it is worth noting that the offer is 2.5% and a further 1.5% is offered provided that a further 400 jobs are shed from the sector. This appears to be a sticking point as the RTBU seems to want a 5% flat and no job cutting measures. The classic debate wage increases based on productivity increases.

I guess we will see what happens on Thursday.

Postscript:

It seems we might not have to wait until Thursday as it seems the RTBU leadership has reached a tentative agreement with the Deputy Premier and Minister for Transport, John Watkins. The agreement still needs to be approved by the union membership but if the leadership accepts the deal then they are likely to be pushing for the rank and file members to accept it.

If the rank and file accept the deal then the strike is averted.

Postscript II:

It seems that Kevin Rudd before making the big dash to the G-8 meeting in Japan has decided to weigh in on the RTBU planned strike action (seemingly already averted see above postscript). The PM's take on the planned industrial action was that any strike would be disrespecting the Holy Father!

Hold on a minute. I thought we lived in a land where there was separation between Church and State. I also did not realize that we had to show special reverence to a fella who had no qualms about telling Protestants that their Churches were not really Churches in the sense of the practicing of faith. Maybe respect is a two-way street.

In any event, is the NSW government completely blameless in this whole affair? It is easy to blame the unions but the reality is that there are two sides in this negotiation and as such both are to blame for drawing this thing out for as long as they have!

No matter what, it is possible to respect people, including the Pope, and still feel that you have a legitimate right to strike. Now, if that strike action causes a great deal of inconvenience then perhaps that is the point, particularly if you want people to understand what your cause is and the reasons behind the action...

Just my thoughts.

World Youth Day -- Transport Strike Update

The government is taking the threat of strike action seriously. So it should considering the traffic problems that it would create. However, the government's plan is to go to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) with a view to resolving the stagnant negotiations or getting an order that would prohibit any strike action during the Pope's visit.

I have a sneaky feeling that resolve in the government's mind is getting the AIRC to sign off on the 2.5% cap on wages. If that fails then an order that simply says any strike action on certain dates would be illegal.

The NSW Minister of Transportation, John Watkins (pictured), says that the "industrial action ... is irresponsible, and in particular next week." I wonder irresponsible for who? The members of the RTBU whose families are going to be negatively impacted by a wage rise that is below the rate of inflation? Or irresponsible to those who are going to be making some big cash out of the Pope's whirlwind tour of Sydney?

The irresponsible party here is the NSW Labor Government who have failed to put into place any contingency plans in the event their negotiations with the RTBU went belly up. Another fine example of the NSW Government taking their eye off the ball and then looking to blame someone else for their complete ineffectiveness. Then again, maybe we should have seen this coming.

My hope is that the government does take this to the AIRC and they slap the 5% increase that the RTBU is demanding on the government. This would avert any industrial action and ensure that nothing irresponsible happens.

I wonder who is looking after the little people while the NSW Government is looking after the interests of the Catholic Church?

Postscript:

It seems that the government might not be all bad. Latest reports are saying that the government has a 4% wage offer on the table that would require some productivity improvements and some head office changes.

The drama continues.

World Youth Day -- A Transportation Nightmare

The World Youth Day was always going to be a challenge in terms of transportation as it was going to require the closure of roads and the implementing of special declared areas (look at the legislation which is posted elsewhere on this blog). However, with the Rail, Tram, and Bus Union's decision to hold strike action on 17 July 2008, this challenge has just gone from perhaps being manageable to being a nightmare.

Traffic congestion was expected to be heavy, but not outrageous as many people were expected to fore go the car and take public transport, either train or bus. A strike on this day would make it impossible to leave the car at home. The alternative would be for employers to just write the day off and make it a holiday.

One of the feature events of the WYD is the Pope taking a dinghy ride from Rose Bay across the harbour to the Opera House foreshore and then legging it up George Street in the Pope Mobile (I have always preferred the Bat Mobile myself) with the trusty faithful literally legging it up George Street in hot pursuit. The idea would have been for the pilgrims and other interested onlookers to train and bus it down to the Circular Quay. A strike makes this impossible. I guess people will be doing a lot of walking on 17 July.

The RTBU is striking because they feel that after 11 months of haggling with the government and RailCorp that the 2.5% cap on wage rises is an insult. There is no doubt that the enterprise bargaining agreement that employees are on now needs updating. The question that remains is whether 2.5% is an adequate response to the demands of employees.

I would figure that after 11 months morale is low, staff are probably looking for alternative employment where their efforts are more adequately rewarded, or they just really cannot be bothered working in any meaningful way than just going through the motions which would see a significant drop in service standards (some might already argue that rail and bus service was already poor).

The intention to strike on 17 July really does up the ante as the pending transportation nightmare is sure to get a lot of airplay not only locally but internationally. This sort of image is hardly one NSW wants to be putting out to the world.

Some might consider this to be blackmail, others might consider it to be a good negotiating strategy, I think it shows that the union is in desperation mode and that this is the only conceivable way that they see in ending this negotiation. I have a sneaky suspicion that the NSW government will ride out the strike no matter what.

The pressures on the Premier are already immense and if he lets this slide then this is certain to cement the image of a "do nothing bloke" not worthy of the State's top job.

The fun continues!

Human Rights, Freedom of Speech, and the Catholic Church

It would seem that not all Catholics are thrilled about the new annoyance laws put into place to "guarantee" that pilgrims are not annoyed or inconvenienced during the World Youth Day festivities.

Father Frank Brennan (pictured), who also happens to be a lawyer, feels that the new police powers are not only excessive but an interference of the civil liberties of people and in fact the new laws run contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church. Fr. Brennan cites the Pacem In Terris, the 1963 encyclical of Pope John, where it is clear that responsibility of all authorities was "to safeguard the inviolable rights of the human person". Perhaps the NSW Government has interpreted this to mean the inviolable rights of the Catholic pilgrim.

However, the Catholic Church holds no such reservations. The Church has in fact indicated that it fully supports the laws and that it lobbied the government to ensure that the laws were enacted on the grounds that everyone wants WYD to be held in Sydney and that the people of Sydney, not only the pilgrims, were in favour of such measures because they want the event, which will be full of enthusiasm and joy, to run smoothly. I am not sure who the Catholic Church has been talking to on this.

Whether the laws are contrary to Catholic teachings is neither here nor there in that sense. I would have thought that pedophilia was contrary to Catholic teachings as well but it still happens. The laws are simply an affront to basic human rights that the majority of us take for granted but that the Catholic Church does not. In any event putting laws like this into place is like showing a red rag to a bull. Those groups that might not have been inclined to protest will now come out of the woodwork and protest on principle.

It is interesting that the organizers of the WYD and the Catholic Church want to have their cake and eat it too. An argument could be made that Jesus was the protester of his time. There were many in power who disagreed with his message and his teachings for which Jesus paid the ultimate price. The analogy drawn by Dr John Sweeney, the co-ordinator of research at the Edmund Rice Centre, says the following, "It would rather be like Jesus calling for a police escort on Palm Sunday. Obviously, he wouldn't and when Jesus went into Jerusalem people yelled out things the religious leaders in their time didn't like and they rebuked Jesus and he said he couldn't quieten his supporters."

This is a thought worth pondering. If Jesus really was about free speech and the right to preach his message then isn't it a little rich that the organizers want to curtail that very freedom for which Jesus died?

As you can see these increased police powers bother me.